So, the Supreme Court has rejected the so called “independent state legislature” theory, , a legal argument so flimsy that in my law school days, had anyone attempted to make the argument in a constitutional law class, he or she would have failed. But, all is not lost for the fascists and racists pushing this theory:
The ruling soundly dismissed the theory, one that an unusually diverse array of lawyers, judges and scholars across the ideological spectrum viewed as extreme and dangerous. Adopting the theory, they warned, could have profound consequences for nearly every aspect of federal elections, including by erasing safeguards against partisan gerrymandering and curtailing the ability to challenge voting restrictions in state courts.
But some election law specialists cautioned that Tuesday’s decision elevated the power of federal courts in the process, allowing them to second-guess at least some rulings of state courts based on state law.
“This gives the U.S. Supreme Court the ultimate say over the meaning of state law in the midst of an election dispute,” Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, wrote in a blog post. “This is a bad, but not awful, result.”
We all remember that Roberts, who wrote the decision, wanted to avoid outright reversing Roe v. Wade, preferring instead to proceed, as the Wicked Witch counseled, “SLOWLY”. Roberts wanted to let the right to abortion die of a thousand cuts rather than kill it off immediately, and my take is that he feels the same way about killing off democracy.
Look for this court to green light extreme gerrymandering, except in the rare instance when it benefits Democrats. It has already refused to do anything about it on its own, and we will now begin to see it “second guess” any state court that actually tries to do something about it.
This decision was probably the best the court liberals could get, but they’ll be in the minority in future cases. I hope I’m wrong. It’s a small victory at the moment, but bear in mind that all the court did was reject a legal theory that was absurd on its face, which still got three dissents.
As an aside, how absurd is the New London Day’s headline for this article?
Supreme Court Rejects Election Reforms
A legal theory designed to subvert democracy is hardly a reform. If you don’t believe me, here’s the OED on the subject:
make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it.
I’ve always suspected that whoever pens the headlines for the Day is a right winger, and this buttresses my theory.
Update: Joe Patrice, over at Above the Law got there before me, but in my defense, I didn’t read his post until after I posted the above.
Post a Comment